Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 16:40:26 GMT -5
I don't think I'm making your case at all, frankly.
With the caveat that I'm not a hunter, period, and would never shoot an animal for sport,
I think it's one thing to shoot a wild, ferocious beast on the loose that hurts people and livestock (and in 1902, that is how black bears were regarded), and quite another to put a suffering animal out of its misery.
We put our pets out of their misery when they are suffering. Or rather, we have vets do it. Do you regard that as "farming out our dirty work," or an act of mercy? I see it as the latter.
ETA:
To draw an (admittedly far from perfect) analogy, if I were a police officer chasing an escaped dangerous convict, I would consider myself justified in using force to bring him to bay. Indeed, if I thought he were a genuine danger to the public and there was no other way, I'd think it justified to use deadly force. But once that convict has been cuffed and captured, using force against him is despicable.
The point is, what one might regard as sport or fair play with a ferocious creature is no longer sportsmanlike at all when that same creature is subdued and helpless. And when the wild bear was wounded and suffering, what was Roosevelt to do with it? Bring it to the vet? I'm serious here. Also recall that this was 1902.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2018 16:45:34 GMT -5
Yes, it's an act of mercy. It's also about the dirtiest job one can get. It weighs on the soul, regardless of how necessary. A leader doesn't pawn that grief off on someone else. He mans up and takes responsibility for what must be done.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2018 16:48:43 GMT -5
As for the vet, since I have access to one, I will take my dog there when the time comes. It's much kinder than shooting. But I'll be there petting him and telling him goodbye. I won't farm that part out to the vet. It will be on me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 16:53:22 GMT -5
Um, yeah. The people who shot the bear were in fact the ones who wounded it and tied it up. Roosevelt didn't have squat to do with that -- they merely summoned him once it was done. It was in fact their dirty work in putting the bear in that position. I'd say it was their dirty job to put it out of their misery.
It was a hunting party, not an executive action. Roosevelt was just another hunter who also happened to be president. They mistakenly thought Roosevelt would enjoy taking credit for the easy kill. They were wrong.
Even if it were an executive, official function -- do presidents shoot everyone in battle? fly over targets to bomb them? pull the switch on criminals in the electric chair? That's more in line with "their job" (since they in fact caused those actions to be done). This bear -- Roosevelt didn't wound him and tie him up. It was not his job as a "leader" to put it out of its misery. It was the job of those who caused the suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2018 16:58:06 GMT -5
If, in the course of the hunt, Teddy had shot and wounded one of the beasts, would it then have been unsportsmanlike to have dispatched it from its suffering? Of course not, and that's exactly what had to be done in the case of the already-injured bear. As leader of the party, he should have stepped up, instead of turning his back and leaving it to someone else. He shirked his duty as a leader, IMO. I don't think it can be explained more clearly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 17:07:23 GMT -5
But he did NOT shoot and wound the beast. He didn't have anything to do with that. What he did was a gesture of mercy towards the bear, and a gesture of contempt towards the men who thought he'd enjoy taking credit for the easy kill. If, in fact, he'd gone ahead and shot the bear, that's exactly how it would have been seen. His turning his back on them, declining the "honor" of killing the bear (as the other men regarded it), and telling them to put it out of its misery spoke much louder than his shooting the bear himself and issuing a lecture. (For one thing, it wouldn't have made a good cartoon and we'd probably know nothing about it.)
Instead, he made it clear that it was unsportsmanlike and cruel, and in a way that (very obviously) resonated with people. Hence Teddy's bear. Hence the cartoon with the bear as a sympathetic creature rather than a ferocious beast. Hence people and general and children coming to think of bears more sympathetically.
And I don't think it can be explained more clearly that this had squat to do with him being a leader.
What, do you think he was squeamish about shooting creatures and took the easy way out? Clearly, he wasn't squeamish at all. What he was doing was refusing an "honor" and making is clear that it was in fact DIShonorable to do what these men did, and DIShonorable to shoot a helpless creature in the name of sport.
I think the symbolism is pretty clear. And apparently, it was to others too. Which is why the toy sold like wildfire and the attitude towards bears shifted.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 11, 2018 17:46:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 17:52:52 GMT -5
I have to admit, I totally considered ordering a Chia Obama. I think they're adorable. I'd consider a Chia Trump, too. The whole notion of a chia president cracks me up -- I find it silly and harmless (and since they seem to have chias for a bunch of presidents, including Lincoln, I don't find it disrespectful (at least not in a way I find offensive).
On the flag code thing, if Trump supporters and the GOP generally weren't constantly raising holy hell out of what they (wrongly) see as flag violations, I'd still think the bear was tacky as hell and possibly heralded the end of civilization as we know it, but I wouldn't react quite the same way. I'd make a couple of jokes and forget about it. As it is, the hypocrisy, it burns.
ETA:
Then, too -- I think symbols matter. I agree much of the outrage in existence is indeed manufactured -- but that said, I think we should treat our flag with respect, as a symbol of what our country is supposed to stand for. I mean, I don't want to jail people or fine them for violating the flag code. Of course not. But I'd like people generally to at least understand what is and is not the appropriate way to treat a flag, just as they learn the national anthem and the pledge. I did in grade school. They should know what the flag, the anthem, and the pledge stand for -- the basics of how our government functions and the bill of rights, free speech, free press, freedom of religion.
But too many people don't. They haven't a damn clue what the flag stands for and what is a desecration of those values. Which is symbolized by their thinking it's cool to make the flag into a blanket and stuff it in a cheesy toy bear with stupid hair.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 11, 2018 18:20:10 GMT -5
I can't disagree with the hypocrisy of it. I'm just saying someone violates the flag code is someway everyday. Take the Olympics as a timely example. Any athlete does well and they take a victory lap draped in the flag. No one bats an eye.
I find this bear hilarious and incredibly tacky and in poor taste, much like an Adam Sandler comedy. But I can't just work up any outrage over the flag stuffed in its back no matter the amount of hypocrisy displayed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 18:26:52 GMT -5
I can't disagree with the hypocrisy of it. I'm just saying someone violates the flag code is someway everyday. Take the Olympics as a timely example. Any athlete does well and they take a victory lap draped in the flag. No one bats an eye. I find this bear hilarious and incredibly tacky and in poor taste, much like an Adam Sandler comedy. But I can't just work up any outrage over the flag stuffed in its back no matter the amount of hypocrisy displayed. To be honest, it's less outrage on my part than "OMFG that is so goddamn tacky, what the hell have we come to in this country, gaah." My beloved Rick Wilson summed it up best: I'm pretty squarely on the other side of whatever cultural divide this bear and that commercial represent.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 12, 2018 5:17:05 GMT -5
I think you nailed it, prozyan . We're all trapped in a very bad Adam Sandler movie. The whole bear with a flag up it's ass thing is right up his alley. Perhaps that's why I find so much of what's going on in politics boringly unfunny and sophomoric. It's all being scripted by Adam Sandler, who I also find boringly unfunny and sophomoric. OTOH, perhaps Sandler's popularity among the masses explains why politics has devolved to its present state. AAMOF, after due consideration, I'm pretty sure there's a huge overlap in the Venn diagram "Sandler Fans and Trump Voters," at least among people I know.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2018 9:08:39 GMT -5
I think it's one thing to shoot a wild, ferocious beast on the loose that hurts people and livestock (and in 1902, that is how black bears were regarded), and quite another to put a suffering animal out of its misery. I don't have much of a problem with the Roosevelt story, really. But on the above: people in 1902 were not morons. Bear hunting trips like the one in this story were a thing for upper end of society, just like fox hunts in merry ol' England. Fox hunting was always justified by those doing it as necessary to control the fox population for farmers. And trophy hunting is still justified today as necessary to control populations and minimize threats. But many people disagree with these arguments, thought they were bullshit, both then and now.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2018 9:10:21 GMT -5
On the flag stuff:
Yes, the hypocrisy on the right is rampant with this issue. That's been the case--unfortunately--for a long, long time. The Trump crowd is pushing it even farther, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 13:16:48 GMT -5
I think it's one thing to shoot a wild, ferocious beast on the loose that hurts people and livestock (and in 1902, that is how black bears were regarded), and quite another to put a suffering animal out of its misery. I don't have much of a problem with the Roosevelt story, really. But on the above: people in 1902 were not morons. Bear hunting trips like the one in this story were a thing for upper end of society, just like fox hunts in merry ol' England. Fox hunting was always justified by those doing it as necessary to control the fox population for farmers. And trophy hunting is still justified today as necessary to control populations and minimize threats. But many people disagree with these arguments, thought they were bullshit, both then and now. Agree. But the number of people who disagree with those arguments is larger now, and there are far more laws protecting various animals and restricting hunting of them. At least according to the Post article (and it makes sense to me), this shift in societal attitude towards wildlife owes something to this bear incident. Also, taking my point in context, it was made as part of an argument rebutting Don's comment that Roosevelt was being a coward and a poor leader by delegating "his dirty work", which I think very much takes both Roosevelt and the incident out of context, historical and otherwise.
|
|